International Route: Anacortes-Sidney, BC

[ruddernut]

Instead of running it north around San Juan Island to Sidney, why not swing it south of SJI for a direct passage to Victoria? It's about the same distance, yet a more convenient end point for most passengers, right?

[ruddernut]

What's more, by looking on a map, I find that Anacortes is closer in latitude to Victoria than it is to Sidney. What is the point in straying that much further north to take them that much farther away from Victoria?

[Barnacle]

If your map shows Anacortes-to-Victoria to be a more effective route, get your money back. It's clearly defective, because it's missing some islands.

Seriously, though... the idea of running to Victoria is fraught with problems, not the least of which being the large expanse of open, unprotected waters at the eastern end of Jan de Fuca, which our boats really couldn't handle. It's really quite a short hop across Haro Strait by comparison.

The route would also take another half-hour each way, maybe a little less. It is a longer route, believe it or not. At least according to Rand McNally's Road Atlas, some casual math, and a bent ruler. And a cup of coffee.

(Someone tried going around the south end of San Juan Island in 1996 and ran the boat aground. Mind you, he went inside the buoy at Cattle Point, but...)

[ruddernut]

barnacle said:

If your map shows Anacortes-to-Victoria to be a more effective route, get your money back. It's clearly defective, because it's missing some islands.

During the summer, WSF does have direct nonstop Anacortes-Sidney sailings. They could instead sail south of the islands to Victoria, couldn't they?

barnacle said:

Seriously, though... the idea of running to Victoria is fraught with problems, not the least of which being the large expanse of open, unprotected waters at the eastern end of Jan de Fuca, which our boats really couldn't handle. It's really quite a short hop across Haro Strait by comparison.

The route would also take another half-hour each way, maybe a little less. It is a longer route, believe it or not. At least according to Rand McNally's Road Atlas, some casual math, and a bent ruler. And a cup of coffee.

(Someone tried going around the south end of San Juan Island in 1996 and ran the boat aground. Mind you, he went inside the buoy at Cattle Point, but...)

Is the channel between Cattle Point and Lopez Island too narrow and/or shallow for a big car ferry? I don't see how those big boys can't handle large expanses of open water on the Juan de Fuca.

[EGfleet]

During the summer, WSF does have direct nonstop Anacortes-Sidney sailings. They could instead sail south of the islands to Victoria, couldn't they?

And dock where, exactly? I admit I haven't been to Victoria in a number of years, but I don't recall any dock that could handle the way WSF vessels load.

Is the channel between Cattle Point and Lopez Island too narrow and/or shallow for a big car ferry? I don't see how those big boys can't handle large expanses of open water on the Juan de Fuca.

Possibly in the summer...WSF boats are not designed for the seriously rough conditions encountered in the Strait. Having been on the Chelan in ten to twelve foot seas it is not a pleasant experience.

A few years back in similar conditions the Elwha slammed into a wave so hard that a window in the passenger cabin shattered, sending glass all over an elderly couple. Every car on board was damaged. It takes really very little to have water--up to several feet of it--wash over the car decks in heavy seas. And this was in the relatively sheltered and quickly crossed Haro Strait.

You could argue that the boats could "handle" it, but at the risk to the vessel, the potential liability that could be incurred, the extra time it would take to get into Victoria, it wouldn't be worth it.

WSF's been going to Sidney for over fifty years. Frankly a direct route form Anacortes to Victoria wouldn't be nearly as scenic, which is a big selling point for travelers on the route. Sidney also is a great mid-point for travelers heading over to Victoria or to hop one of the B.C. Ferries just down the road. A fair amount of the travels I've encountered working on the run are actually headed out to the Salt Spring or one of the other Islands or points other than Victoria.

I think WSF has been very happy to have Black Ball Transport provide the link directly to Victoria. If they felt they needed a stake in going directly to Victoria, they probably would have made a play for it somewhere along the line in the last 50 years.

[BreannaF]

Well........ A casual examination of my official Washington State Map shows that a route around one or all of the San Juan Islands would be longer and more exposed than the current routing. But......

The way I initially thought about this question is this: Why are any of the ferry terminals where they are? In most cases, the answer is that they were "always" there. Or more precisely, the terminals were placed mostly in places where, historically, there was always a landing where people traveling by boat got on or off. In other cases, many of these decisions were made more on the availability of suitable land to put he terminal.

I was going to try to figure out the history of the Sidney Terminal. (And, likely, someone here will have that information at the tip of their brain faster than I can find it.) But in the meantime, I present the following:
1) There isn't currently a suitable place for a WSF-type ferry to load & unload in Victoria, and
2) Someone, at some time, secured the spot in Sidney. Because of the investment involved there and contracts signed, as well as some history now of there being a service between the two points, I think it would be politically impossible to make any changes to the route.
2a) You can't change it. It's always been there.

I'm guessing this has as much to do with the location of the dock as to the route itself. Though, the direct route would appear to have some problems.

**Edit** And sometimes, the answers come while you are typing your own post!!

[ruddernut]

evergreenfleet said:

During the summer, WSF does have direct nonstop Anacortes-Sidney sailings. They could instead sail south of the islands to Victoria, couldn't they?

And dock where, exactly? I admit I haven't been to Victoria in a number of years, but I don't recall any dock that could handle the way WSF vessels load.

Can't Ogden Point be developed to handle front-loading car ferries, be it for this or the eventual replacement for the Coho?

evergreenfleet said:

Is the channel between Cattle Point and Lopez Island too narrow and/or shallow for a big car ferry? I don't see how those big boys can't handle large expanses of open water on the Juan de Fuca.

Possibly in the summer...WSF boats are not designed for the seriously rough conditions encountered in the Strait. Having been on the Chelan in ten to twelve foot seas it is not a pleasant experience.

A few years back in similar conditions the Elwha slammed into a wave so hard that a window in the passenger cabin shattered, sending glass all over an elderly couple. Every car on board was damaged. It takes really very little to have water--up to several feet of it--wash over the car decks in heavy seas. And this was in the relatively sheltered and quickly crossed Haro Strait.

You could argue that the boats could "handle" it, but at the risk to the vessel, the potential liability that could be incurred, the extra time it would take to get into Victoria, it wouldn't be worth it.

WSF's been going to Sidney for over fifty years. Frankly a direct route form Anacortes to Victoria wouldn't be nearly as scenic, which is a big selling point for travelers on the route. Sidney also is a great mid-point for travelers heading over to Victoria or to hop one of the B.C. Ferries just down the road. A fair amount of the travels I've encountered working on the run are actually headed out to the Salt Spring or one of the other Islands or points other than Victoria.

If even the clunky 60-year-old Coho can handle the water conditions on the Juan de Fuca, what's WSF's excuse for not being able to withstand a few waves?

Are the Gulf Islands such a big draw for American visitors, by the way? They can't be moreso than Victoria itself, and I don't see what the big attraction on them is that they can't find on the San Juans.

[EGfleet]

If even the clunky 60-year-old Coho can handle the water conditions on the Juan de Fuca, what's WSF's excuse for not being able to withstand a few waves?

Um...let me...think...how about no bow doors, no stern doors, no enclosed car deck, vessels that were not designed to withstand the often brutal conditions in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?

The "clunky 60 year old Coho" was designed to sail across the strait.

WSF's boats were designed for the generally calm, SHELTERED waters of Puget Sound and not open water.

In fact the only WSF vessel to ever sail across the strait to Victoria was the Kalakala which you'll remember did have an enclosed car deck, bow doors and stern doors.

[whidbeyislandguy]

evergreenfleet said:

If even the clunky 60-year-old Coho can handle the water conditions on the Juan de Fuca, what's WSF's excuse for not being able to withstand a few waves?

Um...let me...think...how about no bow doors, no stern doors, no enclosed car deck, vessels that were not designed to withstand the often brutal conditions in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?

The "clunky 60 year old Coho" was designed to sail across the strait.

WSF's boats were designed for the generally calm, SHELTERED waters of Puget Sound and not open water.


In fact the only WSF vessel to ever sail across the strait to Victoria was the Kalakala which you'll remember did have an enclosed car deck, bow doors and stern doors.

Amen Evergreenfleet !
"In fact the only WSF vessel to ever sail across the strait to Victoria was the Kalakala which you'll remember did have an enclosed car deck, bow doors and stern doors."

[WettCoast]

I am persuaded by these arguments. While there would be merit to an Anacortes - Victoria route there are some technicalities such as availability of a suitable boat, and a terminal on the Victoria side.

BC Ferries, on the other hand, will soon have a boat suitable for such a run. And at 47 years young the Tsawwassen would be comparatively young by WSF standards. A service (perhaps administered jointly by BCF/WSF) could be implemented on such a route. But then again, why a route to Anacortes? Would it not make more sense to go to Seattle? Hey wait a minute, didn't we used to have just that?

[ruddernut]

wetcoastkidjst said:

BC Ferries, on the other hand, will soon have a boat suitable for such a run. And at 47 years young the Tsawwassen would be comparatively young by WSF standards. A service (perhaps administered jointly by BCF/WSF) could be implemented on such a route. But then again, why a route to Anacortes? Would it not make more sense to go to Seattle? Hey wait a minute, didn't we used to have just that?

So the large BCF vessels don't have problems with rough water? What kind of shoddy construction do Washingtonians put up with?

As for a hand-me-down vessel from BCF, I think there may be Jones Act issues with that.

And running a car ferry all the way to Seattle would be a waste, since the cars could instead be run over land for most of the distance.

[whidbeyislandguy]

ruddernut said:

wetcoastkidjst said:

BC Ferries, on the other hand, will soon have a boat suitable for such a run. And at 47 years young the Tsawwassen would be comparatively young by WSF standards. A service (perhaps administered jointly by BCF/WSF) could be implemented on such a route. But then again, why a route to Anacortes? Would it not make more sense to go to Seattle? Hey wait a minute, didn't we used to have just that?

So the large BCF vessels don't have problems with rough water? What kind of shoddy construction do Washingtonians put up with?

As for a hand-me-down vessel from BCF, I think there may be Jones Act issues with that.

And running a car ferry all the way to Seattle would be a waste, since the cars could instead be run over land for most of the distance.

ruddernut it isn't about their construction. They are very well built, they can and often do take quite a beating.. It is the however fact that they do not have BOW and STERN doors WSF doesn't use them. we also have open windows on the car decks

[EGfleet]

wetcoastkidjst said:

I am persuaded by these arguments. While there would be merit to an Anacortes - Victoria route there are some technicalities such as availability of a suitable boat, and a terminal on the Victoria side.

BC Ferries, on the other hand, will soon have a boat suitable for such a run. And at 47 years young the Tsawwassen would be comparatively young by WSF standards. A service (perhaps administered jointly by BCF/WSF) could be implemented on such a route. But then again, why a route to Anacortes? Would it not make more sense to go to Seattle? Hey wait a minute, didn't we used to have just that?

Hey now, our fleet's average age just went way down with the Steel Electrics being pensioned off! We now average...hmm, let's see...adding all up..about 30 years. Wow, drop four 80 year old boats off your fleet roster and it greatly improves the average age of your fleet. ;D

[SS San Mateo]

ruddernut said:

If even the clunky 60-year-old Coho can handle the water conditions on the Juan de Fuca, what's WSF's excuse for not being able to withstand a few waves?

I don't know about the Coho being clunky, but she's definitely not 60 years old (she's not even 50 yet).

[Nick]

When the Burnaby was the PMIII she did the crossing OK, but I remember crossings being cancelled due to weather relatively frequently.

She also had bow and stern doors that closed properly, no open car deck windows, and was over 400 feet long. WSF's vessels simply aren't designed for any rough crossings.

You might notice that the Coho has side loading doors instead of bow doors. There is a reason for that, which is the fact that a solid bow is much more structurally sound than an open bow (even with a bow door).

Oh yeah, and to echo the posts above, the Coho is not clunky, isn't 60 years old (she was launched in 1959), and is maintained better than any BCF vessel, and probably any WSF vessel.

[ruddernut]

coxnnick said:

You might notice that the Coho has side loading doors instead of bow doors. There is a reason for that, which is the fact that a solid bow is much more structurally sound than an open bow (even with a bow door).

I thought it was so that it can dock sideways in Victoria Harbour, instead of protruding into it and being an obstruction and an eyesore.

They don't make any side loaders anymore, do they?

[ruddernut]

bryank said:

I was going to try to figure out the history of the Sidney Terminal. (And, likely, someone here will have that information at the tip of their brain faster than I can find it.) But in the meantime, I present the following:
1) There isn't currently a suitable place for a WSF-type ferry to load & unload in Victoria, and
2) Someone, at some time, secured the spot in Sidney. Because of the investment involved there and contracts signed, as well as some history now of there being a service between the two points, I think it would be politically impossible to make any changes to the route.
2a) You can't change it. It's always been there.

On the contrary, now that the terminal's owned by BCF, isn't there a possibility that they may one day boot WSF out?

[Nick]

That is definitely a plus to side loading, but the primary reason was to keep the bow structurally strong. You see side loaders once in a while in Europe I think, though. If you look at the older pictures of the inner harbour, the Coho was the least of the navigator's worries in the Victoria harbour. The CP dock was far bigger and protruded way more.

Straight through bow loading is much faster and more efficient, and more cars can be fit on the deck, but since they needed the strength again, they went with the side loading. Another option would have been a bow visor like the QotN or QPR, but I think they were quite rare back in the late 50's.

[SS San Mateo]

ruddernut said:

They don't make any side loaders anymore, do they?

The newest one I can think of is the AMHS vessel M/V Kennikott. It appears the side loading is done at the stern.

[EGfleet]

ruddernut said:

bryank said:

I was going to try to figure out the history of the Sidney Terminal. (And, likely, someone here will have that information at the tip of their brain faster than I can find it.) But in the meantime, I present the following:
1) There isn't currently a suitable place for a WSF-type ferry to load & unload in Victoria, and
2) Someone, at some time, secured the spot in Sidney. Because of the investment involved there and contracts signed, as well as some history now of there being a service between the two points, I think it would be politically impossible to make any changes to the route.
2a) You can't change it. It's always been there.

On the contrary, now that the terminal's owned by BCF, isn't there a possibility that they may one day boot WSF out?

BCF does NOT own the Sidney terminal. The City of Sidney still owns the terminal.

BCF has a 40 year contract to operate the terminal. The language of that contract states that WSF is to be a priority user of the terminal.

[Nick]

BCF does NOT own the Sidney terminal. The City of Sidney still owns the terminal.

BCF has a 40 year contract to operate the terminal. The language of that contract states that WSF is to be a priority user of the terminal.

That is absolutely correct. WSF also has scheduling priority at the sidney terminal. (ie, if BCF wanted to run a vessel to Sidney as well, it couldn't be at the same time the WSF ship is in dock.)

[WettCoast]

ruddernut said:

As for a hand-me-down vessel from BCF, I think there may be Jones Act issues with that.

The Jones Act would not affect the Tsawwassen as she would be running on an 'international route' - i.e. to Victoria. The Jones Act applies only to ships running between U.S. ports.

So in that sense such a scenario is possible. However, the scenario is otherwise very unlikely but nice to speculate about.

[Mirrlees]

The original dock in Sidney was located at the foot of Beacon Ave. The cars waiting to board the ferry would line-up the centre of Beacon. Some of the pilings form the Government wharf today. The terminal where we know it today was opened in 1955. I think WCK has a pic of the Sidney making docking trials in 1959 while Swartz Bay was still under construction.

[ruddernut]

wetcoastkidjst said:

ruddernut said:

As for a hand-me-down vessel from BCF, I think there may be Jones Act issues with that.

The Jones Act would not affect the Tsawwassen as she would be running on an 'international route' - i.e. to Victoria. The Jones Act applies only to ships running between U.S. ports.

So in that sense such a scenario is possible. However, the scenario is otherwise very unlikely but nice to speculate about.

The boat wouldn't then be able to make stops at Friday Harbor or any of the SJ Islands along the way, would it?

[In Washington]

WSF may say they want to keep Anacortes/Sidney in operation...

Don't believe it. If they had a "soft" way to jettison that route it would have been done 5 years ago. Mike Thorne wanted to do it but political pressure prevailed.

As a business/financial decision for WSF they would love to let BCF handle the few cars and passengers we carry.

Once again, the politicians expect WSF to do things but can't seem to understand that they need to come up with a reliable funding base for WSF.

As far as going to Victoria; I see that happening when pigs fly (from San Juan Island to be historically accurate)